Well we know what happened in the garage because there were film crews doing their job of filming what was going on.
What I can’t remember is were the film crew(s) from the documentary crew or from the regular news crews?
Grassley Says He Was Not ‘Involved In Any Conversations’ About Him Presiding Over Congress On Jan. 6
1 Like
Republicans are lying traitors.
1 Like
There is no “innocent reading” because Gassley explicitly says they don’t expect Pence to attend. Same question as before - under what circumstances would Gassley assume the VP wouldn’t be there when his presence is specifically required. He doesn’t say “might” or “in the event.” He says “we don’t expect him,” Inquiring minds would love to know what Gassley was thinking…
3 Likes
See discussion above. Your out of context partial quote obscures the possibility of an innocent explanation.
Recall that Pence’s comments about not trusting Secret Service agents other than his own:
2 Likes
You’d think so, but then few could have anticipated that this story would come out in a disbarment hearing against Eastman, in California.
3 Likes
Chuck’s staff keeps him on a very short leash. At committee hearings, it seems that he reads everything from a written script, including, “The Committee will come to order.” (Bangs gavel twice, awaits further instructions.)
1 Like
Hmmm, I think fair minded people recognize the evidence suggests otherwise and Grassley must be compelled to explain himself to Jack Smith’s investigators, under oath.
5 Likes
I believe the correct take on the SS was, as an organization they were compromised and some of the top actors were doing Chump’s bidding.
But Pence has his own SS squad, and THEY were not going to play along. Pence and his SS leader were wary of what was happening and knew there was a deeper current playing out that they needed to stay out of.
3 Likes
This description of Chuck Grassley is literally the definition of useful idiot.
2 Likes
And yet you remain unable to understand it. Get help.
Nothing I like more than being condescended to. There’s nothing partial or out of context about what Grassley said.
According to the Iowa Capitol Dispatch on January 5, which appears to be the source TPM used, this quote stands out -
“Well, first of all, I will be — if the Vice President isn’t there and we don’t expect him to be there, I will be presiding over the Senate,” according to a transcript of his remarks sent by a spokesperson.
Read it over and over if you must, but on January 5, Grassley said the words, “we don’t expect him to be there.”
The Capitol Dispatch also includes this CYA paragraph as Grassley’s toadies clearly went into damage control mode -
He suggested Pence was not expected to attend but Grassley’s staff later said that was a “misinterpretation” and that Pence was expected to be there.
Not sure how you “misinterpret” Grassley’s exact words, but when you’re in a panic any bullshit will do.
If you must, go ahead and read the entire article - someone is covering up something.
2 Likes
3 Likes
I think Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony was helpful in this regard. Tony Ornato, a former Secret Service officer, was coordinating the activities of the coup conspirators with Mark Meadows from within the White House.
Both Meadows and Ornato were in close proximity to, and in communication with Skanky and the coup leadership during the coup and invasion.
3 Likes
Praetorian Guard
2 Likes
FWIW, I am able to read it both ways. If it was written and not just spoken, it probably would be easier to judge his actual meaning. We should not need to decipher whether the word “if” is implied anywhere in his statement. That said, I don’t trust Grassley one iota.
Also, ‘Get help’ was unnecessary.
5 Likes
Pence and his family would never have been seen again, and it’s pretty clear Pence knew it.
But it was helpful. Since the commenter self-identified as one that needs to be blocked (which s/he now has been).
1 Like
I am old enough to remember the Clinton years - when the question “that depends on what the meaning of “is” is?” seemed a little bit of a dodge.
3 Likes
My late husband used to say something to the effect of “I wouldn’t piss on him if he was on fire” and I never objected. What bothers me about recent comments which include toilet humor and vulgarity is that they dilute the purpose and the point of having a political blogsite. Seems like a lot of jokesters are showing up more and more and it’s this cohort who don’t to seem to care about politics, national affairs, etc. and only want to (try to) amuse the rest of us mostly seriously folks.
As to Shakespeare, would that people did occasionally quote him.
1 Like